Activism In Support or Against Private Business

Status
Not open for further replies.
you go through a process of legalities to acquire certification and licensing, get your pieces of credential, and have guidelines/rules/laws to follow while enjoying said privelages within society's guidelines set. It is a sort of social doctrine, you see.

Jackpine,

It's beyond me how you can argue that an item specifically called out and defined as a right in the Constitution is not a right.

You cite examples of why society suspends the RKBA and other things you that claim are not rights, yet you keep missing one fundamental concept that all by itself invalidates your argument:

We as a society or as legislatures or as judges lack the authority to strip away or place conditions (certification and licensing) on a right inherent in mankind's existence and which is confirmed and protected by the Constitution, then justify that stripping by saying it was never a right at all but merely a privilege granted by society. We do it, but we do so in violation of our inherent humanity and of the Constitution.

If that is what you mean by "social doctrine," you're barking up a tree that doesn't exist. If you can cite "social doctrine," I'll listen. But you can't. I can cite the Constitution though.

Our RKBA is not something society gave us, so it's not society's place to remove it. However, individuals can and often do voluntarily suspend or surrender it.

Hypothetically, if I am convicted of committing certain crimes, I go to a place where I'm not allowed to have certain items in my possession, including a gun. Prisons (like businesses and privately owned premises) have the authority to insist that people entering must leave their guns elsewhere. I knew that would be the case when I decided to commit that crime, and therefore I voluntarily accepted the responsibility for the temporary suspension of my RKBA by that prison. Society didn't strip it from me; I surrendered it.

[And when I get out, I have paid my penalty, and the voluntary suspension is reset. Or it should be. At the moment I've served my time and am released from prison, my surrender of RKBA ought to be counted as served as well. If I can't be trusted with a gun because I was once in prison, then I should still be in prison.]

Starbucks, like any business, has the right to ask patrons to leave their guns elsewhere -- to temporarily suspend our RKBA in order to enter -- and we as individuals have the right to not patronize Starbucks. What we are applauding is that despite pressure to stand against RKBA, Starbucks has declined. That's why I'm going to openly and enthusiastically patronize a Starbucks on Valentine's Day, the day on which those who would like to abolish RKBA have decided to not patronize Starbucks.

Don't worry, Starbucks. They'll all be back on Feb 15.
 
This is actually a fantastic thread, and thanks to the OP for posting it. My view is quite simple, and defensible:

Rights & Responsibilities:

1) I have the right to carry, anywhere, in order to protect myself.

2) Government entities and property owners have the right to place restrictions on my carry. ***

3) *** Government entities and property owners who restrict my right to carry, are obligated to, and financially responsible for, providing security in their restricted zone. This is because they choose to restrict my ability to defend myself at my expense.

4) *** I have the right to not do business with government entities and property owners and who restrict my right to carry. That may, or may not work, depending on location, and availability to alternate an source to supplant those placing restrictions on me.

Soultions:

Either A or B:

A) Honor my right to carry ***

B) *** Honor 2, 3 & 4 above.

See; it's simple.

Geno
 
The fact that a criminal looses some of the constitutional rights guaranteed to free citizens during incarceration isn't unconstitutional and using the loss of those rights during incarceration as an argument for citizens being denied their rights logical. Equating the rights of criminals to free citizens is a false argument.

Where was I talking about incarcerated peoples? (Are you directing this comment at someone else?)

People who are convicted felons are not legally allowed to own/possess firearms. They have lost that privelage as our Society has agreed that is how it will be.
 
This is actually a fantastic thread, and thanks to the OP for posting it. My view is quite simple, and defensible:

Rights & Responsibilities:

1) I have the right to carry, anywhere, in order to protect myself.

2) Government entities and property owners have the right to place restrictions on my carry. ***

3) *** Government entities and property owners who restrict my right to carry, are obligated to, and financially responsible for, providing security in their restricted zone. This is because they choose to restrict my ability to defend myself at my expense.

4) *** I have the right to not do business with government entities and property owners and who restrict my right to carry. That may, or may not work, depending on location, and availability to alternate an source to supplant those placing restrictions on me.

Soultions:

Either A or B:

A) Honor my right to carry ***

B) *** Honor 2, 3 & 4 above.




See; it's simple.

Geno
It is oversimplified in that it conflates government entities and property owners into the same class with regards to the powers that they have. This is not true, and should never be true given the nature of the authority for those two.
 
Wow, a property owner's strip search "rights" on private property? How in the world did you make that leap, and where did you think I would agree to consent to that? I swear, you guys have ingenious imaginations when you set your mind to something!!

So, let's look at the flip side of the coin: you own a business. Are you going to deny access to your business, to those who refuse to legally carry a firearm therein?
No, because part of the characteristics of a right are that you are able to make a choice regarding its expression. If you have the right to carry a firearm, you have a right to choose not to. Just like the Miranda rights inform you that you have a right to remain silent, but you do not have to remain silent.

If it is acceptable for private businesses to violate the rights enumerated in 2nd amendment, then why can't it violate the rights enumerated in other amendments as well?
 
Last edited:
Nope

If it is acceptable for private businesses to violate the rights enumerated in 2nd amendment,
Also, The Constitution is only a contract, if you will, with the Federal Gov't. It does not apply to private business. Never has. A business owner may throw you out if he does not like what you are saying and you can scream 1st Amendment till you are blue in the face, it will do you no good. A private business is just that, private. It is not bound by the Constitution, only the laws of the local, state and Federal governments.

So the Constitution only protects your rights from infringement by the Gov't, not private business or citizens.

Or was your question rhetorical? If so please disregard.
 
Last edited:
If it is acceptable for private businesses to violate the rights enumerated in 2nd amendment, then why can't it violate the rights enumerated in other amendments as well?

They can't "violate" my right on their property because the rights guaranteed in the BOR are guaranteed against the government's usurpation of the rights of the citizen. The private property owner's right to say what I may do or not on their property is their choice and guaranteed.

If we don't like it we can express our disapproval by refusing to step foot on the property or do business with the property owner/operator. The property owner's right to make that choice is as guaranteed as our right to not have the government abridge our right to keep and bear arms. They have the freedom to do that without government meddling, but must deal with the consequences of that decision. IOW they have the right to anger us and loose our business and earn our emnity.

It is a difficult idea to accept that our right is no different than the property owner's.
 
They can't "violate" my right on their property because the rights guaranteed in the BOR are guaranteed against the government's usurpation of the rights of the citizen. The private property owner's right to say what I may do or not on their property is their choice and guaranteed.

If we don't like it we can express our disapproval by refusing to step foot on the property or do business with the property owner/operator. The property owner's right to make that choice is as guaranteed as our right to not have the government abridge our right to keep and bear arms. They have the freedom to do that without government meddling, but must deal with the consequences of that decision. IOW they have the right to anger us and loose our business and earn our emnity.

It is a difficult idea to accept that our right is no different than the property owner's.
This seems to have slipped my mind. Yes, the Constitution only protect the citizens from the federal government. It doesn't protect us from private businesses. If it did, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wouldn't have had to be passed; public accommodations would already have been prohibited from discriminating based on race, religion or national origin by the 14th amendment.

We are not at a point similar to the era of the 60s with regards to proliferation of discrimination, and I hope we never get there. But if it got to the point where the prohibition by public accommodations for the RTKBA made it impractical for citizens to do so legally, it would be worth revisiting whether the property rights of the owners of public accommodations are serving as an end-run of the 2nd amendment.
 
We as a society or as legislatures or as judges lack the authority to strip away or place conditions (certification and licensing) on a right inherent in mankind's existence and which is confirmed and protected by the Constitution, then justify that stripping by saying it was never a right at all but merely a privilege granted by society. We do it, but we do so in violation of our inherent humanity and of the Constitution.

If that is what you mean by "social doctrine," you're barking up a tree that doesn't exist. If you can cite "social doctrine," I'll listen. But you can't. I can cite the Constitution though.

No, you have decided to rearrange what I have written, and excluded what you want to. Very convenient.

Yes, I can cite and explain the Social Doctrine, as I already have and it does include the aspects of governemnt you have included.

The Social Doctrine pertains to Society's agreement that laws and enforcement of said laws will be done, in order to protect Society as a group, and that the criminal justice system will be entrusted to do so. However, I see you have already decided to NOT listen or research what Social Doctrine actually is. That's fine, but is a point of your debate located at the bottom of a quicksand pit.

You say "strip rights" as if to infer I have said that it happens arbitrarily, and I did not say that nor infer it. I said Society overall has decided that gun ownership/use/collection will NOT be legally done by convicted felons, that's all I said which is the truth-it is not my opinion or my muddy interpretation of a vague law. People in the US who have been deemed deficient by court proceedings lose the privelage to enjoy firearms legally. Period.

That is not "rocket surgery" dissection of the Constitution. We can throw out all the great one-liners we want about gun ownership and self defense, etc., but when you break certain laws, are found guilty of felonies, you forfeit the privelages. Society's will is in those laws, it is in the appointed and elected authorities, and the checks and balances are in place therein for making changes.

Social Doctrine does exist, it is not a tree I'm barking up, rather it is a tree of our Society that has been cultivated for the last 200+ years. We as a Society do not want another form of England telling us what religion to obey nor taking all our income for inflated taxes.(Tea Party) We DO want to maintain our ability to defend ourselves against another tyrannical government like England was to us in the 1700s.

It's ironic that a coffee shop has decided to let the individual states decide on carrying in their stores, as we became largely a coffee nation after beginning the boycott on England's teas. History repeating itself in a morphed form. Good stuff!
 
That is not "rocket surgery" dissection of the Constitution. We can throw out all the great one-liners we want about gun ownership and self defense, etc., but when you break certain laws, are found guilty of felonies, you forfeit the privelages. Society's will is in those laws, it is in the appointed and elected authorities, and the checks and balances are in place therein for making changes.
The RKBA is as much a right as the one to life, as far as the 5th amendment goes. Of course, one could say that the privilege to life is also one that we(as a society at some points) have decided can be legally stripped after due process has occurred.
 
The Bill of Rights protects certain - wait for it - RIGHTS. Non-negotiable, so-called inalienable rights. Natural rights, not legislated privileges.

They are:
First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly; right to petition.
Second Amendment – Militia, Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.
Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops in peacetime.
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
Fifth Amendment – Due process, protection from double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
Sixth Amendment – Criminal trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel.
Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.
Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically delegated to Congress in the Constitution.
Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

In today's political climate, however, all too many politicians and citizens have taken the attitude expressed by Capt. Barbosa in the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie: "...the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules.”

This attitude is nowhere as evident as when discussing the rights of business owners and the rights of those who carry firearms - employees and clients - in accordance with the provisions of the Second Amendment.

We frequently see and hear remarks like the following: "I would be upset if the government tried to tell me how to run my business..."

The fact of the matter is that the government ALREADY tells one how to run their business - in ways that are at-odds with the Constitutional protections afforded private citizens on property that is truly private. It requires business entities to construct bathrooms a certain way so as to accommodate the physically disabled. It specifies how many handicap parking spaces one must provide. It requires one to allow service animals (even in a restaurant), and prohibits one from discriminating in hiring - meaning that one can be forced in some instances to hire people with whom one might not normally associate in a truly private setting where the Constitutional right of association (First Amendment) is protected. Additionally, business entities may not discriminate against customers or employees based on race, ethnicity, religion, etc. - people with whom a private citizen might not choose to associate in the privacy of their home. These laws serve to protect the civil rights of employees and clients.

In short, civil rights, which the Bill of Rights establishes (including the civil right to bear arms), have been legally elevated above the rights of business entities.

Of all of the rights specified in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment exists to insure that other rights - including property rights - are secure. One must be able to defend that which belongs to one's self. Without a means of defense, all other rights - including property rights - are vulnerable, mere words on a piece of paper that really don't mean much. In other words, the right to own property exists only insofar as one is able to DEFEND that property. This includes the right to defend that property which is most precious to every person, their own body. As was observed by Bastiat in his work, published in 1850, The Law:

"Man can only derive life and enjoyment from a perpetual search and appropriation; that is, from a perpetual application of his faculties to objects, or from labor. This is the origin of property. But also he may live and enjoy, by seizing and appropriating the productions of the faculties of his fellow men. This is the origin of plunder. When does plunder cease, then? When it becomes more burdensome and more dangerous than labor.....God, has bestowed upon every one of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his property, since these are the three constituent or preserving elements of life; elements, each of which is rendered complete by the others, and that cannot be understood without them. For what are our faculties, but the extension of our personality? and what is property, but an extension of our faculties?...every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property." (emphasis added)

In other words, the right to protect one’s body from physical harm does not end at the doorway of a business, whether entering as an employee or a client.

The inviolable nature of the Second Amendment is found in the terminology contained therein.

The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” As used in a legal context, as is the case in the Second Amendment, the phrase "shall not" indicates that the provision is non-negotiable; absolute; mandatory. When legislators wish to convey the unconditional, mandatory nature of a law, they insert the phrases "shall" or "shall not". NO ONE has the authority to abridge the practice of the right delineated in the Second Amendment - "...shall not be abridged." This is an absolute statement. Congressional acts restricting the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment using the Commerce Clause of the Constitution (using the Constitution against itself) are in violation of protections explicitly stated in the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights [i.e. congressional authority], shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Second Amendment right to bear arms is one of the civil rights "retained by the people." And there is that pesky legal phrase again: "shall not". The Bill of Rights is not a smorgasbord from which we choose which rights we will protect. One may choose not to practice a right, but that choice not to practice rights guaranteed in the Constitution in no way infringes on or negates the practice of Constitutionally-protected rights by others.

While business owners (this author has been in that position himself) might wish to argue that their business is private property in the same way as their home, there are an overwhelming variety of laws governing business entities that say otherwise. As has been observed previously, those laws exist to protect the civil rights - the rights preserved in the Bill of Rights - of employees and clients. Business entities, places of public accommodation, do not enjoy the same level of Constitutional protection as that afforded to individual citizens. While that may be hard for some to swallow, even a cursory look at US business and civil rights law will bear this out.
 
In what country on this planet would an individual business owner be forced to allow firearms on their personal property?

In no country. That being said, in no country should I not have the freedom to not patronize a business with whose policies I disagree. We all make choices and choices have consequences.
 
"No Catholics, No Mexicans, No Firearms, No Women or Dogs allowed"
"No Blacks, Jews, Irish, Chinese, etc"

I think we've been through all this before. It's called civil rights. If you do business with the public, the law says you can't discriminate upon a civil right.

Your "private" rights end when you open the doors to start sharing your business with others. Close the doors and you can do what you want. Open them to others, and you must respect THIER rights too.

Woolworths never did want to let blacks sit at the counter. Nobody made them. They just tore them all out. Nobody sits there anymore. If they put them back in, then they have to share.
 
Originally Posted by hso
They can't "violate" my right on their property because the rights guaranteed in the BOR are guaranteed against the government's usurpation of the rights of the citizen. The private property owner's right to say what I may do or not on their property is their choice and guaranteed.

If we don't like it we can express our disapproval by refusing to step foot on the property or do business with the property owner/operator. The property owner's right to make that choice is as guaranteed as our right to not have the government abridge our right to keep and bear arms. They have the freedom to do that without government meddling, but must deal with the consequences of that decision. IOW they have the right to anger us and loose our business and earn our emnity.

It is a difficult idea to accept that our right is no different than the property owner's.

Except the same business/property owners expect to use the coercive power of the gov't to enforce the contract you are about to engage in. They can't demand gov't intervention to enforce the contract, but reject gov't power over the same situation when it does not suit them. None of us operate alone on an island. We all benefit from equal application of the law in court. That same law requires equal application from the beginning.
Don't open your business to the public if you are not going to do so fairly. There are only a few reasons for which it is illegal to discriminate. Otherwise it's up to both parties to agree. But our law is based on the idea that it is illegal to discriminate to the public for these few reasons. Otherwise it's nobody's business but the buyer/seller. If one of those reasons is violated... then it does become a federal case (so to speak).

A private whites/members only golf course is still legal. A white only coffee shop on the corner is not.
 
I'll take it one step further, since some people are uncomfortable couching a discussion of Second Amendment rights in terms of civil rights (they feel that term has become overused). The BOR doesn't merely outline civil rights, it is the first real, comprehensive statement of HUMAN rights!
 
Oh this is great!

What are your ideas of private property?


Does a convicted felon still have a "right" to RKBA?
 
Some would argue that anyone has that right once they've been released back into society having served their sentence, others would argue that they threw that and other rights away when they broke the contract with society and government and committed the crime that made them a felon. What rights a felon may have is an argument in and of itself and is a red herring.

This discussion is only concerning the right of a fully enfranchised citizen vs. the rights of a property owner. Minors, felons, non-citizens, aliens from the center of the galaxy are just sleight of hand distractions from the topic.
 
This discussion is only concerning the right of a fully enfranchised citizen vs. the rights of a property owner. Minors, felons, non-citizens, aliens from the center of the galaxy are just sleight of hand distractions from the topic.

I did not bring up aliens from another galaxy, minors, or non-citizens.

I brought up the "right" of a corporate entity having the choice to decide about what happens/does not happen on their private property.

I brought up the fact that privelages can be removed from citizens who have deemed themselves faulty by our agreed apon Society's laws, and how it relates to NOT everyone having "inalieable rights" to bear arms, wherever and whenever they think.

The discussion is about how some folks think that 2A ENTITLES them to carry wherever/whenever they feel it is necessary-and how that emotionally based misinterpretation gets people in trouble, and MORE importantly how it is giving the anti-gunners a P.R. perception lead on us that is our political suicide!!

Yes, everybody has a "right" to financially boycott a business to make some sort of statement. However, when the reasoning for said boycott is based on false premises about carry "rights" on private property, it makes us ALL look like absolute morons. Even the neutral gun rights people out there, who could not give a rat's behind about this issue, look at this entitlement theory and think.." *** are they smokin?!"
 
Yes, everybody has a "right" to financially boycott a business to make some sort of statement. However, when the reasoning for said boycott is based on false premises about carry "rights" on private property, it makes us ALL look like absolute morons.

Two separate issues seem to be getting mixed up here.

1) To the extent that I would participate in a boycott of a store over their anti-carry policies, I would do so simply because I want them to allow something they currently do not allow. I'm expressing my opinion in an attempt to convince them to change that policy. "If you want my money, change this policy. If you don't care about my money -- you feel the benefits outweigh the costs of not meeting my wishes -- then go about as you were and I'll take my money elsewhere." I didn't even have to say the word "RIGHTS" in there at all.

2) To the extent that I feel it is my right and/or duty to be ready to defend myself where-ever/when-ever, I will go where I please (or need to) and do as I feel I must (within the law, of course) and not be concerned at all what the business owner or his insurance company thinks about the matter.

The two issues may cross paths, but they may not as well.

So, jackpinesavages, I guess in the end, we aren't so far apart. A boycott can be perfectly sound and effective without having to carry the question of a RIGHT to that particular action into the matter at all.
 
There are lots of maybes, kind ofs, and inclusions/exclusions that can be made about this debate.

However, going against the clearly stated policy of private property owners, while Society agrees that private property owners have the right to decide what happens/does not happen there is not a gray area: private property owners are not denying 2A protection(s) by posting "no guns allowed" signs.

I would love to see it be legal for every legal gun owner to carry everywhere, but that ain't how we built this horse and carriage. If you want to advocate for carrying where it is actually illegal to do so, against the wishes of a private property owner, that is certainly your privelage to do so. However, start to also advise of the repercussions of doing so and being found out-all the possible penalties that you are subjected to at the discretion of your local District Attorney.






So, jackpinesavages, I guess in the end, we aren't so far apart. A boycott can be perfectly sound and effective without having to carry the question of a RIGHT to that particular action into the matter at all.
 
If you want to advocate for carrying where it is actually illegal to do so, against the wishes of a private property owner, that is certainly your privelage to do so.
Two separate issues mixed, again, here.

In my state (and many others) carrying where it is against the stated policies of a property owner is not necessarily carrying where that would be illegal. Here, and many other places, the law does not recognize or give any legal weight to a property owner's sign or policy.

Our "horse and carriage" may look a bit different from your state's "horse and carriage." :)

However, start to also advise of the repercussions of doing so and being found out-all the possible penalties that you are subjected to at the discretion of your local District Attorney.
I have done so, many times. Here, the repercussions of doing so are that you may be asked to leave the premises, and if so, then you must indeed leave, or you could be charged with trespass.

No other legal repercussions are involved.
 
My rights end where yours begin. It's not a complicated concept. Keep the doors closed you can do what you like. Open them to others and you MUST repect THEIR rights too. Failure to do so can cost you. There are laws involved here, you don't live in an anarchist state where you can do what ever you like.


Handicap parking spaces are REQUIRED for businesses. This is a restriction we place on all new buisness. No individuals or homes are required to have handicap spaces, but we do place this restriction on all businesses. It's really not that big a deal. There are lots of things business have to do that are not the same as individual rights. There is some overlap, and some real differences.
 
The issue of felons losing their rights is an example of the exception to the rule establishing the rule, as is not being allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded public space. Society has agreed that the consequences of some crimes are so damaging that the person committing them should never again have access to the tools he used in the commission of his crimes. Now, as has been pointed out so many times, this only applies (in terms of this discussion) to legal procurement of firearms. That criminals can lose rights that are otherwise considered to be inalienable is covered under the Fifth Amendment, and can only be enacted as the result of due process.

And that is the crux of the matter in this discussion. Some business owners feel that they can deprive citizens who are otherwise fully vested with all of the rights protected by the Bill of Rights of their Second Amendment rights on their say-so alone. This amounts to depriving a citizen of their rights without due process of law, and that is the only process by which a citizen can be so deprived. A business owner is not the law, and a citizen legally entitled to carry a firearm is hardly to be equated with someone yelling "fire" in a crowded public place. Unless there is a preponderance of evidence that mitigates against allowing citizens to exercise their right to bear arms, a business owner's assertion of "I don't think" or "I don't want" hardly constitutes a solid basis to prohibit carry.

Having said that, and as has been pointed out before, there is legal basis for a business owner to limit open display of certain items by employees that are otherwise allowed in public areas: jewelry, piercings, religious symbols or literature, etc. - but even this right has well-defined limits (for example, unless there are well-defined, potentially serious safety considerations involved, an employer cannot prevent a Sikh from wearing his turban, even though this constitutes a public display of a religious symbol). One can argue that open carry of firearms by employees could fall under this guideline, but that still doesn't provide any legal basis for a business owner to prohibit such carry by customers - who are under no such restrictions.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top